If two people agree to marry, isn't that indisputable fact? What else do we need to require to prove a marriage? A "Registration of Marriage" would be sufficient, not an "Application for Marriage License." Marriage is a right, not a privilege. Or do we need to let the government decide who can marry still and continue with the permitting process?
Edit: I would like to know why you might disagree if you are down voting me. yellowapple and I have similar sentiments, I think.
I agree with you that marriage is a right, but there are various reasons why a marriage may be invalid. Perhaps one or the other is underage, or it is incestuous, or bigamous, or immigration fraud. You both must prove eligibility in order to acquire the special legal rights associated with marriage, and rightly so. But of course there is no eligibility requirement for being born!
> If two people agree to marry, isn't that indisputable fact?
Why just two? Why people?
And what exactly is the reason for the State to recognise that two folks like to bump uglies? At lease in the case of traditional marriage, there's the creation of children to contend with.
> At lease in the case of traditional marriage, there's the creation of children to contend with.
Huh? Sterile people have always been permitted to marry. Always. Everywhere. Under all circumstances. Ever. Sometimes inability to bear children has been grounds for divorce or--in the case of royalty--annulment, but there has neveranywhere been a test for non-sterility prior to marriage. So what does "the creation of children" have to do with "traditional marriage", given "traditional marriage" could and did trivially take place between sterile individuals.
And whose tradition? One man, one woman, the man's concubines, the odd houseslave, and perhaps a sheep or two? Is that the traditional marriage you're talking about? It's by far the most common kind over most of the world before industrial capitalism.
"Why just two people?" is of course trivially easily answered: humans are a socially pair-bonded species. This seems to be basic to our biology, and is the case in every society ever observed. While bonds between more individuals are possible, they are rare and complicated (the modern poly community is small, for example, and most frequently consists of multi-pair-bonded networks).
> Sometimes inability to bear children has been grounds for divorce or--in the case of royalty--annulment
Not just royalty. An annulment means that there was never a marriage…because a marriage which cannot produce children wasn't regarded as a marriage (or as less of one), which suffices to demonstrate a strong connexion between childbearing and marriage.
> "Why just two people?" is of course trivially easily answered: humans are a socially pair-bonded species.
We are also, you may have noticed, two-sexed. This is even more basic to our biology.
Edit: I would like to know why you might disagree if you are down voting me. yellowapple and I have similar sentiments, I think.